Sue writes:
: "Notchalk" wrote in message
: How much misinformation could they get into one small paragraph about
: breastfeeding? I don't see antibodies as added bonuses of breastmilk,
: do you? I thought they were normal for a baby to be consuming for the
: first few years of life! ... and I'm sure Health Authorities recommend
: you breastfeed for longer than six months!

: Sounds fine to me. And yes I do think anti-bodies are an added bonus for
: breastfeeding. A point that many women see as an incentive to breastfeed. So
: I am really not sure what your problem is, except that it is by Nestle,
: which again I don't have a problem with like many on this group. I read
: through the article and couldn't really find anything that I disagreed with.
: Me thinks you guys are just too picky. And the article says that breastmilk
: should be given for the first six months, which is true and then at that
: point you start solids.
: --
: Sue (mom to three girls)

This is clearly a politically (and economically) motivated message. You
clearly skipped Psych 101 if you cannot see the way the wording of the
message works to subltly undermine and discourage extended or dedicated
breastfeeding. It is worded in such a way to suggest that breastfeeding
is something "extra" that a mother may *want* for her baby, as opposed to
soemthing the baby *needs and deserves*, and it goes on to imply by
inference that artificial milk (formula) is something "normal" rather than
the inferior product that it is which has fewer health benefits.

This is not a accidental phrasing by the formula industry. It is a clear
and deliberate attempt to limit the duration of breastfeeding for the
economic benefit of the formula industry.

Duh!
Larry